On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:38:12 -0500 Eric Chevalier said: >On 6 Apr 2009 22:43:03 -0700, Timothy Sipples wrote: > >>No, it's not at all misleading (CA's prediction that 2009 shipped >>incremental mainframe MIPS will exceed all installed mainframe MIPS in >>2000)... >> >>Thus "MIPS," at least in this context, is an entirely legitimate and proper >>way to view mainframe growth. It's not the *only* way, but it has ample >>validity. MIPS sales are extremely highly correlated with actual business >>use. >> >>Your desktop PC (or laptop) is entirely different... > >Why do mainframe folks keep comparing mainframes with desktop PCs? >(Why is it that z/mainframe people never seem to compare their systems >to something like an IBM x3950, or an HP ProLiant ML350/370???) > >I don't know if the statistics are available, but if you were to limit >the set of Intel-based processors to *server* class systems and >Intel-based members of the "Top 500 Supercomputer" list, I'd be >willing to bet some money that CA's prediction would still be true: >that all Intel MIPS shipped in 2009 in that category exceeded all >installed MIPS in that category in 2000. (Can we agree that the set of >systems I've described probably spend much less time idling than the >typical desktop PC?)
There are statistics for all sorts of things, including the break downs by server class machines. I wouldn't agree that the set of systems you've described spend less time idling without some evidence of it for several reasons, two of the biggest being that a) desktop machines are often powered down at night, and b) EMC is making bigtime sales for VMWare just to take advantage of this very fact. In fact, by the time you spend all that money on beefing up the VMWare server hardware, build redudant systems, add in fail over and the support licensing, you often are in the range of a System z with z/VM costs. Markets are changing. Demands are changing. The MVS and VM systems of 2000 did their job for 2000. The demands of today are different. Very few people saw the roll of Linux on z that it has today back in 2000. Actually, few people saw the roll of Linux in the organization that it has today back in 2000, and in many ways you're just arguing about how close people were 10 years ago about angels and heads of pins. > >Eric > /ahw ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
